>How would you like it if I responded in kind? For example, I
>could say your God is a baby-killer and practices genocide.
>And I could cite the global flood and the first-borns of
>Egypt, among many other examples for this. And it would get
>us nowhere.
God gave life, so he is free to take it away. Your criticism of God that he somehow is wrong for taking back what he owns and gave, is like me criticizing you for ...
1) owning the $20 bill in your pocket
2) putting it on the table
3) and finally, putting it back into your pocket
... and calling you a thief for taking back what was yours all along! Who did you steal it from? Nobody! And yet you accuse God of taking back what was and is and will be always his?
>And I could cite the global flood and the first-borns of
>Egypt, among many other examples for this. And it would get
>us nowhere.
If you are an atheist, why are you believing these verses from the entire Bible as facts by which to characterize God, and not believing the verses about God’s capacity to forgive and love and help?
So these verses are true about God, and the rest of the Bible is a lie about God?
>Ad hominem BS not worthy of a reply.
You are evading the issue by claiming victimhood of my alleged “ad hominem” attacks, when you yourself do the same thing more subtly with your own words. Let’s review some of your ... subtle ... “ad hominem” attacks against me:
>So you aren’t in favor of creation as a whole, you are only
>in favor of the Christian version as specified in Genesis.
>You should have said that in the first place.
Subtle “ad hominem”: Christians are *narrow* *minded*.
>You see them dealing with facts and well-tested and
>well-supported theories. Scientists rely on the scientific
>method, not on revelation.
Subtle “ad hominem”: Christians don’t deal with “facts” and “well-tested” wisdom/knowledge, but in mere *revelation*, but *scientists* rely on the “scientific method”.
>Religions speak in terms of beliefs, and rue anything that
>causes change to their dogma.
Subtle “ad hominem”: Christianity is mere *beliefs*, rooted in ... dogma! Whereas *science* deals with *facts*.
My response to those who claim in the name of “science” that evolution is “fact” ...
1) the “scientists” didn’t see it
2) because the “scientists” were not there
3) and it (evolution) is not happening today
... and yet, the core of the scientific method, is that conclusions are drawn from *observable* results that are published and thus *reproducible* by other scientists. No scientist has ever *observed* the evolution of a species from another.
The definition of “evolution” being specifically: emergence of new species of animals genetically distinct from the one they evolved from, and thus unable to mate with the species they evolved from, and yet able to reproduce.
See you downthread.
One quick point. You state:
The definition of “evolution” being specifically: emergence of new species of animals genetically distinct from the one they evolved from, and thus unable to mate with the species they evolved from, and yet able to reproduce.Try a google for "define:evolution" and you will not find that definition.
Most definitions are along these lines:
Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next.
More to come.